PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What?

Post by juliangregorian » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:49 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #36

juliangregorian wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love that this is the state of public discourse even on hacker news. Just accuse something of being like anti-vax and the down votes follow. No critical thought required.

Actually, people aren't listening to your anti-fluoride woo because they're well aware of the situation.

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:55 PM UTC

juliangregorian wrote: post #51

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cute answer, but I, along with the entire non-toddler population, don't ingest toothpaste. You do ingest toothpaste, albeit only small amounts. Much like you ingest mouthwash, you just try to keep it to a minimum. > HN's propensity for "don't like it? Just buy this gadget/start your own company/move to Somalia"-style rhetoric also makes an appearance. What else can I suggest? In a democratic society that is your ch…

> In a democratic society that is your choice. You can fight to change the law, or you can work around it. Ridiculous. First, neither of us live in a democracy. There was no vote where the general populace elected to receive low doses of toxic minerals in our drinking water. Rather cabals of lobbyists persuaded municipal officials to add it under the guise of it being a good thing. Which has yet to be statistically d…

Post by DanBC » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:58 PM UTC

juliangregorian wrote: post #43

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, water fluoridation happened, at least in part, because of large company lobbying. This has no impact on its health benefits, however. For $1 a year, we get less cavities. This isn't marketing bullshit, it's science.

It's not science and just because you know a little bit about computer science doesn't make you qualified to speak about water fluoridation. Several countries have banned water fluoridation for the very reason that after decades and decades there is no causal link between water fluoridation and tooth decay.

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 8:01 PM UTC

juliangregorian wrote: post #47

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public water fluoridation has well-understood health benefits (a reduction in cavities that cannot be achieved through brushing alone). It also has well-understood drawbacks (tooth mottling in high concentrations, toxicity in high concentrations). Someone participating in this discussion would either know this from general knowledge, or could look it up. People aren't that ignorant.

Assume that I am. Sources, please.

Post by juliangregorian » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 8:06 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #54

juliangregorian wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a democratic society that is your choice. You can fight to change the law, or you can work around it. Ridiculous. First, neither of us live in a democracy. There was no vote where the general populace elected to receive low doses of toxic minerals in our drinking water. Rather cabals of lobbyists persuaded municipal officials to add it under the guise of it being a good thing. Which has yet to be statistically d…

> Ridiculous. First, neither of us live in a democracy. You don't know where I live! Though I'd agree that capitalist countries are not very democratic, at least not mine and the United States. > There was no vote where the general populace elected to receive low doses of toxic minerals in our drinking water. It varies by country. "Toxic minerals" is an amusing statement given that virtually all substances are toxic…